Dr. Charles Fay blog on Parenting and Technology

Note: This article is from the Love and Logic Institute written by Dr. Charles Fay. No part of this has been changed in any way. For more information, contact the Love and Logic Institute

What’s your answer to the following question?
 

Has my parenting caught up with technology, or am I stuck in the 

“Middle Ages” when people used phones hooked to cords and web addresses were inhabited by arachnids?

While the basics of parenting remain the same, issues involving technology have left many parents wondering what limits are appropriate, how to hold their children accountable for misuse of technology, and how to help kids learn the decision-making skills required to make healthy technology choices when they leave home.

There’s good news! While these modern issues are definitely challenging, we can achieve success by applying some age-old parenting truths:

·       Kids need limits.

·       Limits are best set through actions instead of hollow threats.
When kids make poor decisions, they need to experience natural or logical consequences.

·       When kids make poor decisions, they need to experience natural or logical consequences.

·       Consequences are always more effective when provided with loving empathy.

·      Our kids will learn how to live their lives by watching us.

Listed below are a few examples of essential limits:

·       You may have your tablet as long as there is no arguing when I ask you to shut it off.

·       Feel free to have a cell phone when you can pay for the entire cost.
We allow kids to have their internet-connectable devices as long as they check them in with us each night. We’ll return them in the morning as long as there are no problems.

·       I’ve met plenty of good people who’ve ended up doing bad things on the internet. That’s why your mom has all of my passwords and is free to see my history. You may have this device as long as you do the same. Everyone needs someone to hold them accountable.

·       I’m shutting my phone off so that I can give you 100% of my attention. Thanks for doing the same.

For more tips on parenting and technology, listen to Real Talk on Technology.

Thanks for reading! Our goal is to help as many families as possible. If this is a benefit, forward it to a friend.
 
Dr. Charles Fay

Parent and Student Welcome Back!

August 2018

From: Dr. Bob Diepenbrock, Superintendent of Schools USD 331

To: Parents and Students of USD 331 Kingman-Norwich Schools

Welcome

On behalf of the Board of Education of USD 331 Kingman-Norwich, I welcome you to a new school year and thank you for entrusting your children to our care and education.

The Kansas State Board of Education adopted a vision that Kansas will lead the world in the success of each student through emphasis on kindergarten readiness, improving graduation and postsecondary achievement rates, individual plans of study and social/emotional success. The USD 331 Board of Education reviewed, modified and adopted the 2018-2019 Strategic Success Plan for USD 331 reflecting an emphasis clearly aligned with the Kansas State Board of Education. High School Students continually update their Individual Plans of Study working closely with their teacher advisors and a number of students attend various post-secondary schools such as Wichita State Tech, Pratt and Hutchison Community Colleges. USD 331 is clearly working to meet the vision that will lead the state in the success of each student.   

Prior to the beginning of last year, Kingman Elementary and Middle Schools applied to be Mercury redesign schools, but were chosen as Gemini I schools instead. The Kansas State Department of Education chose only 7 districts for the Mercury Redesign Schools, but offered a more limited opportunity for Gemini through webinars and opportunities to visit other redesign schools and programs. Gemini I schools could choose to begin redesign over 2 years instead of just one. What has happened since last year in USD 331? A decision to semi-departmentalize 5^th and 6^th grade was made at Kingman Elementary and it was decided Norwich Elementary would implement at the same time so the curriculum could be aligned across the district. As we further investigated various options for redesign, it was decided to utilize Summit Learning Curriculum and professional learning tools as all the teachers in both Kingman Elementary and Norwich Elementary spent a week of professional learning in Kansas City this summer. There have been many meetings, room alterations and new furnishing enhancements since to prepare the 5^th and 6^th grade classrooms for an exciting year we believe will enhance learning and build excitement. Redesign in the 7^th and 8^th grade classrooms includes an additional emphasis on project-based learning. Redesign in PK-4 will also include a new math curriculum to improve outcomes and student engagement. There will be more to come from the schools on redesign and new and exciting approaches and I encourage you all to work with your children’s teachers to visit classrooms and ask questions.

The school accreditation process implemented last year started and the district selected goals and outside review placement in the process. During the spring of last year, the outside visitation team (OVT) made a visit, met with each building leadership team and reviewed USD 331 goals and data. The OVT recommended additional collection of data as we go through this new year, but noted the many programs implemented already to assist our students in meeting the district and school goals and shared how impressed they were with what was already in place. As I sat through the presentations to the OVT, I was amazed and proud of each teacher and administrator as they explained the programs and the impact on our students.  The goals for schools include:

·       High schools – post-secondary readiness and quality and meaningful individual plans of study for each student.

·       Middle schools – quality instruction and programs to meet social and emotional needs of each student.

·       Elementary – an emphasis to get students kindergarten ready and maintain grade level readiness after kindergarten.

The Kansas Supreme Court finally made their ruling on equity and adequacy of funding for schools. Essentially, the court determined the state has not yet funded adequately, but indicated the state has made progress and has provided additional time to meet those expectations. The state did not return all the money reduced over the last decade, but has an approach to meet the court’s expectations and is moving forward. We are excited, like other school districts, as we’ve been able to add teachers who can help meet the needs of our students to reach their highest level of education desired. Kansas and USD 331 Kingman-Norwich schools can continue to restore important programs and give teachers and staff a salary that exceeds inflation. Over the past decade, Kansas teacher pay dropped significantly in comparison to other states; from 37^th in the nation in 2007 to the mid-40’s now. We are thrilled to see a renewed emphasis and investment in our kids.

The members of the USD 331 Kingman-Norwich Board, Administration, Faculty, and staff embrace this new day with optimism and ask for your support as we work to improve our students’ education and support their continued success. Again, on behalf of all members of the USD 331 community, welcome to our schools. We want to work together with you so our students lead the state in success.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Diepenbrock

KASB Tallman Report: KS School Funding Trailed Nation...

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Kansas school funding trailed nation and region since Great Recession

Total per pupil funding for Kansas public schools trailed the U.S. average, every state in the Plains region and bordering states except Oklahoma between 2008 and 2016.

When adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars, the U.S. average per pupil funding from all sources increased $343, or 2.5 percent from 2008 to 2016 (the most recent available data). Kansas per pupil funding declined $638, or 4.9 percent, over that period, meaning Kansas fell almost $1,000 behind the U.S. average.

This data does not include Kansas funding in 2017, the second year of school funding under the block grant system which essentially froze state aid, or the increased funding provided by the Legislature last year and for the current year, 2018 and 2019.

Among the Plains States region (Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, the Dakotas and Minnesota) and other Kansas neighbors Colorado and Oklahoma, five states increased funding more than the national average. Four, including Kansas, trailed the national average.

Only Kansas, South Dakota and Oklahoma had a decline in per pupil funding when adjusted for inflation, and only Oklahoma had a larger decline than Kansas.

Total revenue per pupil includes all sources of revenue: state, federal and local, including student fees for textbooks, meals and activities. It includes expenses on capital improvement bonds and Kansas Public Employee Retirement System contributions.

With an enrollment of approximately 490,000 students, Kansas schools should have received an additional $326.6 million in 2016? to have compensate for inflation alone since 2008. To have kept up with the national average, Kansas schools would have required nearly $500 million in 2016.

The 2018 Kansas Legislature approved a plan to increase state funding by over $500 million over five years. This summer, the Kansas Supreme Court basically accepted that approach to determine constitutionally suitable funding, but conditioned approval on adjusting the amount for future inflation over the next five years.

In 2008, Kansas per pupil funding was second in the region, behind only Minnesota. By 2016, Iowa, Nebraska, and North Dakota had also moved ahead of Kansas, and Missouri had moved from $1,357 below Kansas in 2016 dollars to just $124 below Kansas.

There are three critical issues raised by these funding trends.

First, lagging per pupil support explains why Kansas has also lost ground to other states and the national average in teacher salaries, as noted this blog post.

Second, Kansas school funding falling behind inflation and other states puts in context  the Kansas Supreme Court’s Gannon ruling that school finance is not constitutionally adequate. One of the Rose standards adopted by the court as a benchmark for adequate funding is allow Kansas students to complete in academics and employment with students in surrounding states. The Kansas Legislature has also adopted that standard as an educational goal.

Third, it shows that surrounding states with similar economic and population issues have been able to provide either higher funding per pupil or a greater rate of increase, or both, than Kansas.

This data is from U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Education Finances for 2008 and 2016. 2008 per pupil funding has been increased by 12 percent for inflation, based on change in the consumer price index.

State aid for school district bond projects - KASB post

Friday, July 20, 2018

State aid for school district bond projects: how it works, why it matters

Most people are aware that the state of Kansas provides help for some school districts to pay for construction bonds to build, remodel and equip schools and other district facilities. But they may not know the details of how the program works, or why it is important. Decades ago, before the state began assuming a larger role in school funding, schools were mostly funded through local property taxes. There are great differences among districts in the amount of taxable local wealth (called assessed valuation), especially when considering differences in the number of students each district enrolls and educates.

 Assessed valuation per pupil ranges from just over $1,000 in Ft. Leavenworth, a military installation with almost no taxable property, to over $500,000 in Burlington, home of the state’s only nuclear power plant. Even after throwing out those extremes, valuation per pupil ranges from about $25,000 to over $375,000.

This means lower wealth districts would require much higher property taxes to raise the same amount as wealthier districts. For example, according to the Kansas State Department of Education, the average school district bond payment last year was $1,202 per pupil. This is an average: many districts have no debt and no payments; others are higher.

 Again, excluding extremes, a district with $25,000 in assessed valuation per pupil (AVPP) would have to levy over 46 mills to raise $1,202 per pupil, compared to just over 3 mills for a district with $350,000 AVPP. The statewide average would be about 16 mills. Beginning in 1993, even before the Kansas Supreme Court ruled such differences would create unconstitutional inequities for students, the Kansas Legislature created a program to help lower-wealth districts pay for school construction bonds.

 The original formula was amended by the Legislature in 2015. Under the new formula, the LOWEST district in assessed valuation per pupil would receive 75 percent state aid, meaning the state would pay for 75 percent of the annual bond payment. The "aid ratio" drops by one percent for every $1,000 in increase in AVPP.

The next lowest AVPP district for last year, 2017-18, was $25,800. The difference between $25,800 and the lowest AVPP of $1,000 is approximately $25,000. Subtracting 25 percent (1 percent for each $1,000) from 75 percent, means the second lowest current district is eligible for about 50 percent state aid.

Without state aid, a district with AVPP of $25,000 would need to levy about 47 mills to raise the state average per pupil annual bond payment of $1,202. With 50 percent state, the required mill levy drops to about 23 mills.

The aid percentage continue to drop until AVPP reaches about $76,000. In other words, the rate drops from 75 percent at $1,000 per pupil to zero at $76,000 per pupil. There are about 140 districts below $76,000 in AVPP, out of 286, which means that approximately half of districts receive NO state aid, and half receive aid between 50 percent and zero. There are only about 20 districts below $40,000 AVPP, which means most districts that get state aid receive less than 35 percent.

It is important to remember that while lower wealth districts receive an increasing percentage of aid, it does not mean their taxpayers pay less in taxes. In fact, even with state aid, these districts still require a higher mill levy than wealthier districts.

The chart below shows the approximate mill levy required to raise the average bond and interest payment of $1,202 per pupil without any state aid (blue bars), and the levy required with the current state aid formula (orange bars). No aid is paid for districts over about $76,000 per pupil and as AVPP continues to rise, the mill levy continues to decrease.

As the table shows, this program is far from “fully equalized.” Wealthier districts can still raise more revenue per mill, or equal revenue at a lower tax rate; and the poorest districts still must pay more than to raise the same amount. However, it does allow those lower wealth per pupil districts to pay for school construction with tax rates closer to the state average.

Information about specific districts can be accessed through the Kansas State Department’s Data Central portal, here. You can select reports on assessed valuation, bonded indebtedness and bond proceeds.